August 5, 2015

Via Electronic Filing Attn: Docket Operations U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140 West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: Eligibility for “Summary Grant” Process Exemption Petition of Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

To the Flight Standards Service:

This letter shall serve as a petition for a Section 333 Exemption for my clients Matthew Winfree (“Mr. Winfree”) and ForMatt, LLC (“ForMatt” and, together with Mr. Winfree, the “Petitioners”) pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11 (2012) (“Section 333”), and certain sections of Part 11 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As discussed below, this Petition qualifies for the FAA’s “summary grant” procedures, and to the extent necessary, Petitioners respectfully request that the FAA process the instant Petition using the summary grant procedures

. 1

Introduction, Justification, Public Interest

Mr. Winfree is the sole owner and operator of ForMatt. Mr. Winfree is also involved, from time to time, in other business ventures. ForMatt is a land development/site planning/engineering/construction firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Winfree and ForMatt offer site development solutions to clients (including entities in the construction, surveying, and inspection fields), which include, for purposes of the instant Petition, a variety of inspection, monitoring, surveying and aerial photography services. In order to ensure that neither Mr. Winfree nor ForMatt fall behind other competing businesses that have begun incorporating the use of small unmanned aircraft systems (“sUAS”) into their operations, Petitioners wish to begin to incorporate sUAS into their own operations. In so doing, Petitioners will remain competitive and have the opportunity to employ current technologies into their businesses and serve clients more efficiently and effectively. As the FAA is aware, sUAS operations possess

1 Because the instant Petition qualifies for “summary treatment,” a summary of Petitioners’ request is not being provided for publication in the Federal Register, as the FAA’s summary process for Section 333 obviates the need to publish any summary of the Petition in the Federal Register

.Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 2

tremendous potential for aerial data collection, and the use of sUAS technology for these types of services is already well underway.

While aerial data collection—including the type of inspection and maintenance activities contemplated by Petitioners—often involves persons who are essential or ancillary to a jobsite, Petitioners understand and acknowledge that the FAA’s practice in issuing Section 333 Exemption grants has been to limit UAS flight operations to

be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

Petitioners agree to abide by these limitations unless and until the FAA makes a determination in any similar Section 333 Exemption case that UAS flight operations may vary from these restrictions and operate in closer proximity to persons and objects. Petitioners’ proposed sUAS operations will allow for aerial data collection activities where use of manned aircraft is infeasible, impossible, or unsafe. Petitioners’ proposed use of sUAS will, thus, serve as both a safer
alternative to the use of manned aircraft and also as a tool for enhancement of FML’s aerial data
collection services.

Petitioners use a variety of tools for its aerial data collection services, and by this Petition wishes to add sUAS devices to their “toolboxes” in furtherance of those services. Without a grant of the instant Petition, Petitioners’ ability to grow and compete in the growing market for UAS aerial data collection services will be limited and suffer from competitive imbalance. Without a grant of the instant Petition, Petitioners will be forced to wait until the FAA’s current sUAS rulemaking proceeding concludes with the adoption of new, final rules, which, upon information and belief, could take upwards of two years. In addition to the other reasons discussed in this Petition, grant of the instant Petition would serve the public interest by allowing for economic growth and the safe introduction by Petitioners of sUAS operations into the marketplace prior to the conclusion of the sUAS rulemaking proceeding.Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 3

Accordingly, Petitioners seek authority to use UAS to engage in operations with the following functions (and any other similar functions not specifically catalogued below)—each of which falls under the general umbrella category of “aerial data collection”:

- aerial photography/videography - asset management - environmental/geological inspection/monitoring - inspection of infrastructure - maintenance monitoring (construction and other sites) - mapping/survey - precision photography - training for UAS operations

As noted, the above activities may be generally classified as multiple variations of aerial data collection, which fall squarely within the categories of use that have been granted in approximately 1,000 Section 333 Exemption cases. Petitioners seek authority to use the following UAS for the above-referenced purposes: the DJI Phantom Series (including DJI Phantom 3, DJI Vision+); and the DJI Inspire Series (including DJI Inspire, DJI Inspire 2). The FAA has used its summary process to grant dozens of Section 333 Exemption petitions for all of the aforementioned UAS devices, including Exemption Nos. 11845 (multiple DJI series); 11804 (multiple DJI series); 11823 (same); 11837 (same).

In light of the background above, pursuant to Section 333, Petitioners seek exemption from those certain Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) discussed below. Petitioners believe that the instant Petition is substantially similar to other Section 333 Exemption Petitions previously filed with and granted by the FAA—including, for example, the Petitions in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11109, 11112, and 11213—such that this Petition qualifies for “summary grant” treatment under the FAA’s policy announced and implemented in early April 2015 and without need for the FAA to solicit public comment on this proposal. Moreover, each of the specific unmanned aircraft systems proposed to be used by Petitioners pursuant to a grant of the instant Petition—the DJI Inspire Series and the DJI Phantom Series—has been the subject of multiple Section 333 Exemption Petition previously granted by the FAA as set forth above.

In support of this Petition, as a commitment to air safety, Petitioners show the following:

Proposed Conditions and Limitations

This Petition seeks authority to operate each of Petitioners’ UAS subject to the following conditions (and any other conditions and restrictions imposed on Petitioners by the FAA):

* Each of Petitioners’ operators will be familiar with the respective manufacturer’s user manual and will maintain a copy of the user manual at the location of all flights.Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 4

* None of Petitioners’ unmanned aircraft (“UA”), including payload, camera, gimbal,
etc. will exceed 55 lbs.

* Petitioners will not operate any UA at a speed exceeding 100 mph (87 knots).

* Petitioners will operate their UAs only at altitudes that will not exceed 400 feet AGL. To the extent that Petitioners’ operations at any time and any location rely on the FAA’s “blanket COA” for sUAS operations, Petitioners will operate its respective UA only at altitudes
that do not exceed 200 feet AGL.

* Petitioners’ operations of its UA will be such that each UA remains within the VLOS of the pilot-in-command (“PIC”) at all times.

* Petitioners’ sUAS will be operated only by a PIC who holds at least a sport pilot, recreational pilot, or private pilot airman certificate and either a corresponding airman medical
certificate or U.S. driver’s license.

* Petitioners’ sUAS operations will employ a visual observer (“VO”), who will be able to communicate orally with the PIC at all times during operations.

* Petitioners’ sUAS will be maintained and inspected to ensure its condition furthers safe operation. Petitioners’ inspection process will include a pre-flight inspection each time either Petitioner wishes to operate the sUAS.

* Petitioners will not operate at night.

* Petitioners will operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport only with specific authority to do so.

* Petitioners’ sUAS are designed to return to a pre-determined location if a device loses communications or its GPS signal.

* Petitioners’ sUAS operations will be conducted only over private or controlledaccess property (including public property) with permission from the property owner or other authorized representative.

Petitioners respectfully submit that their operation of sUAS under these conditions will be at least as safe and controlled as the operations authorized in prior Section 333 Exemption grants, and Petitioners are commited to safety and to not posing a hazard or threat to other aircraft (manned or unmanned), public safety, or national security. Indeed, Mr. Winfree is, himself, an experienced pilot with a Private Pilot airman certificate, which underscores the Petitioners’ dedication to safe, intelligent, prudent sUAS operations.Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 5

Discussion of Specific FARs

Consistent with the growing number of Section 333 Exemption grants for aerial data collection and other sUAS activities similar to those requested by Petitioners, here is a list of the FAR sections from which Petitioners seek exemption:

14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5) 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1) 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) & (2) 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1) 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) & (b) 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

In addition to the above-referenced FAR provisions, Petitioners understand that the FAA is likely to impose additional conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements on Petitioners’ sUAS operations pursuant to several other FARs, including, for example, certain of Parts 21 2 and 27 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; FAR Section 45.23(b); FAR Section 27(a); FAR Section 91.103(b)(2); FAR Section 91.109; and FAR Section 91.203(a) & (b). However, because none of the Section 333 Exemption grants previously issued by the FAA appear to have “waived,” as a legal matter, these additional FAR provisions, the instant Petition does not seek waiver of and
does not discuss these additional FARs. Because the instant Petition seeks to invoke the FAA’s “summary process” for Section 333 Exemption grants based on the fact that it is substantially similar to hundreds of previously-issued Section 333 Exemption grants, discussion of these additional provisions should not be necessary. Nevertheless, should the FAA Staff determine that an exposition by Petitioners is necessary with respect to these additional FARs, Petitioners respectfully request that the FAA Staff contact the undersigned as soon as possible so that Petitioners have an opportunity to promptly provide such further information.

2 With respect to the airworthiness requirements of Part 21 of the FAR, the FAA has previously acknowledged that relief is not necessary for the sUAS referenced in this Petition. As set forth above, all of the sUAS proposed for use by Petitioners have been the subject of prior Section 333 Exemption grants, with respect to which the FAA has consistently stated as follows:

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112-95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

See, e.g., Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-036, Exemption No. 11110A (Trimble Navigation Ltd.).Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 6

14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c) This FAR requires that persons holding certain airman certificates also hold a certain class of medical certificate. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioners request that the person operating Petitioners’ sUAS be permitted to hold a valid driver’s license issued by one of the fifty United States or the District of Columbia or the corresponding medical certificate required by the airman certificate held by such operator.

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.101(e)(4) & (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) These FARs, respectively, limit holders of recreational pilot certificates, private pilot certificates, and sport pilot certificates to noncommercial operations. The prohibition on commercial activities for operators holding these airman certificates are logical for manned aircraft. For unmanned aircraft, however, the safety issues inherent in commercial activities are vastly different, as there are no passengers, there is no cargo, and the environment is controlled in an appropriate manner. Thus, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioners request that persons operating Petitioners’ sUAS be permitted to use the sUAS for the purpose of engaging in activities
that either are noncommercial or are not noncommercial.

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) This FAR prohibits the operation of an aircraft “unless it is in an airworthy condition.” Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioners seek permission to operate its unmanned aircraft without an airworthiness certificate, and Petitioners will continue to engage in pre-flight inspections to ensure safe operation is possible each time Petitioners wish to engage in UAS operations.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) This FAR requires that a flight manual be maintained in the aircraft. Compliance with this FAR is impracticable in the context of sUAS as there is no “cabin” or cockpit. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioners seek permission to maintain the manufacturer’s manual on the ground with the operator.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) This FAR prohibits the operation of aircraft below altitudes of 500 feet above the surface (except over open water or sparsely populated areas) other than during takeoff or landing. Petitioners propose to operate sUAS at altitudes of less than 400 feet above the surface, and request permission to so, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants. Moreover, as indicated above, Petitioners envision that many, if not most, of its operations will occur pursuant to the blanket COA at altitudes not to exceed 200 feet above the surface. (Should the Petitioners determine that they will have a need to operate at altitudes higher than 200 feet above the surface and, thus, outside of the blanket COA, Petitioners will file for a COA after receiving grant of the instant Petition.)

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 This FAR requires the use of an altimeter during flight for purposes of maintaining the cruising altitude or flight level of the aircraft. Petitioners will not make use of an altimeter in connectionMatthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 7

with its sUAS operations. Instead, Petitioners’ sUAS will either rely on the use of GPS, internal gyroscope, or operator adjustments to maintain the unmanned aircraft’s altitude or flight level. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioners seek a waiver of the requirement relating to altimeter use or, in the alternative, a declaration that use of GPS would satisfy the altimeter requirements.

14 C.F.R. § 151(a)(1) This FAR restricts persons from beginning a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless there is a certain amount of fuel in the aircraft. This FAR is inapplicable to Petitioners’ operations insofar as Petitioners’ sUAS do not use “fuel” per se but instead rely on electrical power generated by small, protected batteries or battery packs. Accordingly, Petitioners propose to deviate from this FAR insofar as Petitioners, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, will not begin a flight unless there is sufficient power available for the sUAS operation to continue at least 5 minutes beyond the intended duration of the flight.

14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417(a) & (b) These FARs govern, inter alia, certain aircraft inspections, the return of aircraft to service after maintenance, and certain maintenance record keeping and retention. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioners propose to achieve an equivalent level of safety by engaging in pre-flight inspections of sUAS and any maintenance that is recommended by the manufacturer of
the sUAS.

Conclusion

Through this Petition, filed pursuant to Section 333, Petitioners seek an exemption from the following FARs: 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c); 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a); 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c); 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) and (b).

Grant of this Petition and Section 333 Exemption, including waiver of the above-referenced FARs, will permit Petitioners to operate sUAS in furtherance of its aerial data collection missions and goals, including aerial photography, inspections, monitoring, surveying, mapping, and other related activities. The grant will result in a reduction of risk and concomitant enhancement of safety as compared to the use of manned aircraft (such as a helicopter) for such activities; moreover, for many such activities, use of manned aircraft is not possible or practicable. Unlike manned aircraft, Petitioners’ UAS operations will not use combustible fuel, and Petitioners’ unmanned aircraft are smaller, quieter, lighter, safer, and more cost-effective than manned aircraft employed for similar purposes. Moreover, Petitioners’ sUAS operations will be in controlled airspace and at least 500 feet away from nonparticipating people. Accordingly, it is believed that such sUAS operations will be at least as safe—and, given Mr. Winfree’s experience and qualifications, safer—than manned aircraft operations used for the same purposes.Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 August 5, 2015 Page 8

We respectfully request that the FAA grant this Section 333 Exemption Petition using the “summary grant” procedure.

Should any questions arise during the course of your consideration of this Petition, kindly contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Hartzell Counsel to Matthew Winfree and ForMatt, LLC